Timesheets or equivalent time records help explain how salary costs are allocated to donor-funded work, especially when one employee works across multiple grants or programs. The goal is not paperwork for its own sake; it is to make payroll charges understandable and reproducible.
Know when time records matter
Requirements vary by donor and organization. Some awards require detailed timesheets, while others allow documented allocation methods or approved effort percentages. Always check the grant agreement and applicable policy before deciding what evidence is sufficient.
Capture enough information
A useful record normally identifies the employee, reporting period, grant or activity, time or allocation basis, total effort and approval. It should be completed close to the period worked rather than reconstructed months later.
Make salary allocation reproducible
Another reviewer should be able to understand how the salary charge was calculated. Where staff work across several grants, combined allocations should be reviewed to prevent double charging or allocating more than the employee’s total available time.
Reconcile time records to payroll
Each month, compare the allocation evidence with payroll and the general ledger. Investigate large changes, new grants, vacancies or staff who moved between projects. Correcting the allocation during the month is easier than rebuilding several months during an audit.
Use a consistent allocation method
If the organization uses percentages, actual hours or another approved method, document it and apply it consistently. For a broader approach, read how to allocate staff time across multiple grants.
Common mistakes
- Completing time records long after the work was done.
- Using identical percentages every month without checking actual work.
- Allocating the same time to more than one donor.
- Failing to obtain required supervisor approval.
- Not reconciling salary allocations to payroll.
What to do next
Use the Grant Evidence Inventory to check whether payroll and staff-allocation evidence is complete enough for donor review.
For practical funding intelligence, subscribe to Africads Grant News.
Example: staff working across three grants
Suppose a finance officer supports three donor projects in the same month. Charging one-third of salary to each grant may look simple, but it is only defensible if that allocation reflects the approved method and actual work pattern. If one project required substantially more effort during reporting or audit, the organization should follow its documented allocation approach rather than automatically repeating equal percentages.
Keep the method understandable
Complex allocation formulas are not automatically better. The method should be reasonable, consistently applied and supported by records. Supervisors reviewing time records should understand what they are approving.
Address corrections transparently
If a salary was charged to the wrong grant, correct the accounting entry using the organization’s normal process and keep an explanation. Avoid unexplained journal entries that move payroll costs between awards without evidence.
Periodic reconciliation between payroll, time records and the general ledger helps catch these errors before donor reporting or audit.
Keep approvals timely
Time records are stronger when employees and supervisors complete and approve them soon after the period ends. Repeated late approvals can indicate that the system is being treated as an administrative afterthought. Build the review into the normal payroll close so questions are resolved before salary costs are reported to donors.
Managers should also watch for consistently unrealistic staffing budgets. If actual staff effort repeatedly differs from proposal assumptions, use that learning in future grant budgets. Better staffing estimates reduce the number of payroll reallocations and make implementation easier to explain to donors.
Where donors accept alternatives to detailed timesheets, document the approved method clearly and keep the supporting basis. The core test remains the same: salary charges should be reasonable, consistently applied and supported well enough that a reviewer can understand how the allocation was calculated.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do donors require timesheets?
Timesheets provide evidence that salary costs charged to a grant reflect actual time worked on the funded activity rather than unsupported estimates.
Should staff complete timesheets daily?
Daily or near-daily completion is stronger than recreating time at month-end because it reduces recall errors and unsupported allocations.
Can percentages be used instead of hours?
Only where the donor and organizational policy allow it and the percentages are supported by a reasonable, consistently applied methodology.
Who should approve timesheets?
The employee should certify the record and an appropriate supervisor should review it for accuracy before payroll costs are allocated to grants.
What is the biggest timesheet risk?
The biggest risk is charging salaries based on planned effort rather than actual work, especially when one person supports several grants or unrestricted activities.
Conclusion
Timesheets are credible only when they reflect actual effort, are completed consistently and connect clearly to payroll allocation. NGOs should design a simple process that staff can follow routinely rather than relying on corrections when reporting or audits begin.